Those suite are already done and look good. fs and kcephfs were reviewed and approved by Patrick. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Abhishek <abhishek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2017-09-25 19:33, Patrick Donnelly wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Abhishek wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2017-09-25 11:43, Abhishek wrote: >>>> > On 2017-09-25 03:08, Yan, Zheng wrote: >>>> > > On 2017/9/24 22:03, Abhishek wrote: >>>> > > > On 2017-09-19 23:11, Patrick Donnelly wrote: >>>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Yuri Weinstein >>>> > > > > <yweinste@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> > > > > wrote: >>>> > > > > > kcephfs - needs analysis - Patrick, Zheng FYI >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21463 >>>> > > > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21462 >>>> > > > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21466 >>>> > > > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21467 >>>> > > > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21468 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Last 3 look like blockers. Zheng will have more input. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Here are the results of a rerun with -k testing, >>>> > > > >>>> > > > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2017-09-22_19:35:04-kcephfs-luminous-testing-basic-smithi/ >>>> > > > & details http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21296#note-20 >>>> > > > There are a few failures which look environmental but a few look >>>> > > > like >>>> > > > they are related to the changeset (the ones with cache) >>>> > > > >>>> > > "MDS cache is too large" issue should be fixed by >>>> > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/17922 >>>> > Ah alright this is a qa suite fix, we can run a the suite with a qa >>>> > suite argument just to be sure. >>>> >>>> alternatively we can just merge this in luminous branch and this gets >>>> tested >>>> in the final qe run anyway, since we may have to do that since there are >>>> some >>>> rados and cephfs changes? >>> >>> >>> Yes, let's do that. >>> >>> I think all of the other blockers are resolved now? >> >> >> These whitelist QA fixes would be good to merge to silence spurious >> failures for QE: >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/17945 >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/17821 > > > About QE validation, my vote is to just go through cephfs & rados suites as > we have a rados and a few (mostly qe related) cephfs prs that went in. > > Sage/Yuri/Patrick thoughts? > > >> >> Otherwise CephFS looks good to go. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
